Comments by "Nattygsbord" (@nattygsbord) on "Logically Answered"
channel.
-
1
-
@bj0urne
As I sees it can one own physical things, like for example a chair. I can own it. I can sell it. I can repaint it. I can change the cushion on it if I didn't like the old one.
So then I do not understand why I shouldn't be able to do the same thing with say music, and just remix it and add some sound effects to make it sound better.
If I am not allowed to do that, then I do not consider it to be ownership - as I am not able to what the hell I like with the product I just bought.
And maybe this is one of the main reasons why I think the copyright industry needs to die off. Because I like to own things.
I prefer to own programs instead of renting them online at an overprice. I prefer the old days when I could have a game on a CD or a harddrive instead of having it only available through Steam.
And many of my books I have paid for am I unable to read because of some DRM protection.
So I consider the entire copyright industry to be a scam. And a threat to our democracy, with all their bribes of politicians, with their demands for laws that allows big corporations to spy on people (to make sure they don't download), and their eagerness to apply censorship.
The piracy movement on the other hand wish to democratice access to culture, knowledge and information to rich and poor alike. The pirate bay was the modern version of the library of Alexandria.
And the national heritage should belong to the citizens and not some owners/aristocrats/copyright holders.
Just like people should be able to visit a museum for free and learn about their own country's history, should people be able to listen to famous song of the past that are part of our cultural treasure. Its nothing strange with that I think.
What is strange are people who defend the current order, when some relative of a dude who died 70 years ago decide who should be able to to use a videoclip, music piece or whatever that was created one hundred years ago.
I think that is extreme.
And those who believe that more copyright is always better, and equals more creativity do I think should be more honest and openly advocate 12.000 years of copyright and a system where we all pay royalty fees to those who invented the wheel and the roman alphabet.
Because this is how absurd things are.
If the choice stands between sacrificing democracy and personal integraty on one hand, and copyright on the other - then do I easily sacrifice the copyright system.
Much of the best art and culture has been created by those who had no interest in making money. Franz Kafka wrote his books for himself without any intents of gaining fame or riches, and his books were found in his drawers after he had died and then publiched to the world and became famous.
Nearly all arguments I have seen from the pro-copyright side have either been dishonest or intellectually lazy. Things they say like "one illegal download equals one less sale" which I do not believe, as I do not think a child in Nigeria downloading a media editing program worth 1200 Euro would have bought it instead if it wasn't able for downloading. I simply do not think he had the money. Indeed, its possible that he have only helped to popularize a product by using it.
Another tiresome slogan is that it is a human right to get paid for work - which is not true either. Especially not if you are working with say art or sports. Just as I do not get paid for cleaning up my own room, are there some hardworking people who are talented at painting tin soldiers or playing floor ball that will never get rich no matter how much talent they have or how much effort they do. And meanwhile do some garbage artists and athletes get millions.
1